Donoghue V. Stevensonson Case Study

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposing snail in the ginger beer and claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and severe shock upon the sight of the snail. She sought to recover damages from Stevenson, claiming that the presence of snail was due to his negligence. Could Mrs. Donoghue bring an action in negligence against Stevenson? Stevenson argued that as they were not in a contractual relationship, hence there was no special relationship and therefore he did not owe her a duty of care.
Decisions: Mrs. Donoghue was entitled to recover damages against Stevenson who was negligent. He owed a duty of care to the consumer to take reasonable care by examining every bottle of ginger beer before the beers reached
Throughout the years from 1940 to 1945, he wrote to his sister and her husband (the Wakelings) to persuade them to move from England to Australia to look after him. However, significant sacrifices were required to be made by the Wakelings, including Mr Wakeling resigning his lectureship at Cambridge University. In return, Ripley promised to bequeath the bulk of his estate and his house to the Wakelings. The Wakelings, in reliance upon his promises, left their employment, sold their house and came all the way to Australia in the early 1947.
One year after their arrival, disputes arose between the Wakelings and Ripley which resulted in Ripley reneging on his promise by selling off his house and disinheriting the Wakelings. The Wakelings then sued for breach of
If an employee commits a tort, the employer is vicariously liable and can be sued in damages. The plaintiff can sue the employee or the employer. It does not matter that the employer did not personally commit the negligent act. However, to succeed against the employer, the plaintiff must show that the employee was acting in the course of employment. The vicarious liability of the employer only extended to situations where the employee was carrying out activities that were within the scope of the employee’s authority or where it was an activity the employee was contracted to perform.

9. The High Court held that Shaddock was entitled to damages because the piece of advice given by Parramatta City Council was negligent. The court stated that if a person gave information to another person, of whom he had reasonably foreseen that the advice or information will rely upon then the provider of information, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care that the information is correct. Thus, the council owed a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that it supplied the correct